Tech's biggest loser: Bill Gates
Photo: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
The collective net worth of the super rich on Forbes's annual list of the 400 wealthiest Americans fell by $300 billion over the past 12 months, and the tech sector spilled its share of the red ink.
Microsoft's Bill Gates lost the most — at least on paper. His net worth dropped from $57 to $50 billion, not enough, however, to keep him from topping the list for the 16th year in a row. Two current and former Microsofties were close behind: Paul Allen (No. 17) lost $4.5 billion and Steve Ballmer (No. 14) gave up $1.7 billion.
Other notable losers were Michael Dell (No. 13), down $2.8 billion, and SAS's James Goodnight (No. 33), off $1.9 billion.
In this company, the $600 million that Apple CEO Steve Jobs lost on paper doesn't seem so bad. In fact, on the strength of the $5.1 billion he still has, he moved 18 spots up the Forbes 400 list, from No. 61 to No. 43.
Below: The 12 richest tech moguls and their change in net worth. One actually got richer. Can you guess who?
- No. 1. Bill Gates, Microsoft (MSFT): $50 billion, down $7 billion
- No. 3 Larry Ellison, Oracle (ORCL): $27 billion, no change
- No. 11 Sergey Brin, Google (GOOG): $15.3 billion, down $600 million
- No. 11 Larry Page, Google: $15.3 billion, down $500 million
- No. 13 Michael Dell, Dell (DELL): $14.5 billion, down $2.8 billion
- No. 14 Steve Ballmer, Microsoft: $13.3 billion, down $1.7 billion
- No. 17 Paul Allen, Microsoft: $11.5 billion, down $4.5 billion
- No. 28 Jeff Bezos, Amazon (AMZN): $8.8 billion, up $100 million
- No. 33 James Goodnight, SAS Institute: $6.8 billion, down $1.9 billion
- No. 40 Pierre Omidyar, eBay (EBAY): $5.5 billion, down $800 million
- No. 40 Eric Schmidt, Google: $5.5 billion, down $400 million
- No. 43 Steve Jobs, Apple, Pixar (AAPL): $5.1 billion, down $600 million
So Mr. Marcus, Steve Jobs is roughly half way (net worth speaking) to the point at which Billy Bag-o-change got religion and decided to become a Philanthropist. So Billy, from whenever he reached the $5bn net worth mark up util he got religion at the $9.35bn mark must have also be "a money grubber who looks out only for himself"? I mean it must have been right? We are using the same rule to judge, right? Just checking…
Personally I do not give a crap about Jobs or Gate, but you have to give credit when it is due. Apple is ahead of Microsoft in innervation and design and taste. I use PC's also, because I have to, not because I like too.
So friends, reality on the ground is changing, and guess what, it takes a lot more than System 7 or 7.5 to make it. Microsoft has disappointed too many people too many times.
Is this article trying to lead the readers to believe that each individual's drop in net worth is directly correlated with how their respective companies fared in the past year?
I certainly hope not, because it would be naive to assume that everyone's financial portfolio is 100% based on their own company's stock.
ex ped: Not at all. Steve Jobs' net worth, for example, is dependent primarily on the value of his holdings in Disney. But it is interesting how badly the Microsoft guys fared.
SoCal Tommy – Here's an idea… try doing a little research yourself, ya boob. We have this wonderful invention from Al Gore called the Internet. Try it some time.
Spending about 30 seconds with Google, I determined that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was formed in 1994, with a grant from Bill of $94 million in stock. Current estimates put the current endowment at $28 to $36 Billion. At the time, Forbes listed Bill Gates net worth at $9.35 Billion. Seems a bit shy of $45 Billion, don't ya think?
But, either way, Dan's right. Jobs is a money grubber who only looks out for himself.
And don't get me going about Ballmer. He was in the right place at the right time and was smart enough to jump on with both feet. He's still sharp as a marble.
Dan @ Denver – What a maroon you are! Let's see…hmmm…when exactly did Billy Bag-o-bucks make the change to philanthropist??? I don't remember it being around the $1 billion mark…how about $5 Billion? No? $10 Billion? Honestly, I don't know either…but I suspect that it wasn't much before he hit the $45 Billion in wealth mark and I think he was prodded by someone else. Maybe his wife, maybe another somebody in Billionaire's Club. You're such a pathetic whiner.
Jobs is still the biggest loser. At least Gates puts his money to work helping others by means of his foundation. Jobs only wants you to make him richer and buy more Apple junk.
So basically Microsoft still has superior market share to any other operating system. And majority of Microsoft made products still beat out Apple. Well life is great!
Right, you did mention Steve Jobs but you managed to make him look good in the light of the other "losers". Why don't you re-titled your article to "Steve Jobs, one of tech's big losers"?
ex ped: That doesn't make much sense, Mr. Contrarian. As Brian points out below, looking at his net worth as a percentage of value retained over the past 12 months, Jobs did better than everybody on that list except for Bezos and Ellison.
Mogul PCT NW Retained 1 YR
Bezos 101.1%
Ellison 100.0%
Jobs 98.1%
Page 96.8%
Brin 96.2%
Schmidt 93.2%
Ballmer 88.7%
Gates 87.7%
Omidyar 87.3%
Dell 83.8%
Goodnight 78.2%
Allen 71.9%
""if W7 gets XP users to upgrade"
Hah, Hah, Hah. Microsoft junk. If it wasn't so cheap it would be nonexistent."
Gotta love Mac fanboys….I suggest you give Windows 7 a shot. I am HUGELY impressed with it. It will give OSX a run for its money. /I own PC, Mac, AND Linux systems.
Why is this in "Apple 2.0 — Mac news from outside the reality distortion field" section? Oh wait, I know why — it's MS and/or Bill Gates bashing/dissing.
"Tech's biggest loser: Bill Gates", what a stupid and misleading title.
ex ped: It's called a headline, and if you had read past it you might have seen that Steve Jobs is on the list.
How about the 1.5-2 billion on earth who make a $1 a day. How did they do? I am waiting for the latest reports.
A reality check here—-none of these people "lost" any money! The perceived/imaginary value of their assets changed, just like the value of most homeowners homes changed.
ex ped: That's why we specified "on paper." But the value is a bit more than "perceived/imaginary." It's what their holdings would fetch if they had to sell them today. Or rather less, because if Bill Gates tried to sell his Microsoft shares all at once, the stock would tank.
"ex ped: True, but I wouldn't call Warren Buffett a pure "tech" player."
You think any of these billionaires have their entire portfolio in just tech?!
"If Sergey Brin and Larry Page holds same amount of shares of google and there net worth is same amount then why there is a $100 Million Difference? Hmmm Interesting."
Just because they hold the same amount of shares doesn't mean they don't have the rest of their money diversified elsewhere, differently. They don't both just own the same exact thing.
"if W7 gets XP users to upgrade"
Hah, Hah, Hah. Microsoft junk. If it wasn't so cheap it would be nonexistent.
Does he have a web page set up where we can donate to help him get back on his feet?
Honestly, if W7 gets XP users to upgrade, this could still be a good year for tech.
I know that all these people may deserve earning this amount of money however, losing 7 billion will not change Mr. Gate's life in any way.
could you imagine loseing 7 billion dollars and just shrugging it off? next week theyll probably make it back and then some or the government will throw money at them and theyll go to vegas like AIG
Percent change is the best way to look at this when making comparisons, not the absolute amount of money lost.
For instance:
Mogul PCT NW Retained 1 YR
Bezos 101.1%
Ellison 100.0%
Jobs 98.1%
Page 96.8%
Brin 96.2%
Schmidt 93.2%
Ballmer 88.7%
Gates 87.7%
Omidyar 87.3%
Dell 83.8%
Goodnight 78.2%
Allen 71.9%
Now you can make meaningful comparisons because the amount they lost is standardized as a percent of what they had last year.
Looks like the Amazon, Apple, Google and Oracle chiefs faired much better than the Microsoft/ Dell chiefs–no big surprise there though.
ex ped: Cool! Thanks.
According to Forbes 400 link on your blog, Warren Buffett lost $10 billion last year. That's a bigger loser than Bill Gates $7 Billion.
ex ped: True, but I wouldn't call Warren Buffett a pure "tech" player.
Julie in Atlanta – I actually do invest in the stock market and keep track of few selected companies news, etc. Can't track them all.
SAS is not one that I track, and this blog went down the road of bleeding red and people losing money in the stock prices. So, why SAS was posted by PED, I have no idea.
PED – how does SAS tie into your story of stock prices losing their value?
ex ped: I was looking at the paper losses of 12 richest tech guys on the list, and because Goodnight's SAS Institute is a software company, he made the cut.
Jim in Stuttgart-Ebay was listed and SAS is a privately owned company. Maybe investing in the stock market would not be a wise idea for someone who can't do their own research.
I've tried to read this sentence 4 times:
In fact, the strength of the $5.1 billion he still he moved 18 spots up the Forbes 400 list, from No. 61 to No. 43.
ex ped: Thanks for make the extra effort. There were a couple words missing. It reads a lot better now.
If Sergey Brin and Larry Page holds same amount of shares of google and there net worth is same amount then why there is a $100 Million Difference? Hmmm Interesting.
If you are going to list the stock symbols, list them for all listed.
Why 6 out of 12?
You say because you've already listed Google's stock symbol, thus you've omitted all that followed? That won't explain why you left out eBay & SAS.
ex ped: SAS is privately held; no stock symbol. eBay was an oversight. Fixed now.
And futhermore Mr. Marcus…because Big Billy set aside 1% of his net worth he's somehow the "blessed among men"? Since you are so intimate in your knowledge of his philanthropy, perhaps you can tell us if Mr. Bill continued to bless the Foundation with his philanthropy at the same 1 percentile of his wealth as his net worth approached and exceeded $100 Billion dollars? Honestly, I don't know.
Now I know that he has devoted all or nearly all of it to the Foundation, but I suspect that was after much consultation and some determination that he and the missus would have as much as they could ever need for the balance of their lives. Which is of course only right and proper…but let's not give Billy Boy a halo and everyone else who has not given away (to a captive Foundation) all their money a pitchfork. It's not that simple.